Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

As regards membership of 3GPP and GSMA.

What I was suggesting is that 3GPP would be used. This allows you to get access to more operators and regulators than you would have in IETF, and more specifically the correct representatives of the operators and regulators.

GSMA will follow automatically if you get the operators interest.

Membership of 3GPP for small organisations (annual) is not necessarily that much more expensive that IETF (meeting fees). GSMA membership is not needed, and would be very expensive.

Keith

________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 February 2014 20:18
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Tim Panton new; dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Ericsson is not the only vendor that sees a market for small cells, but the expectation is that the products are built to the completed 3GPP standards will be deployed in licensed spectrum by owners of that spectrum, although the boxes may well be owned by 3rd parties.

These deployments already exist.

I see Jim has now identified that this proposal is for licensed GSM operators in licensed GSM space.

Personally, I would suggest if you believe the operators should be picking this up, you take it to 3GPP where the operators are actually present. That is the only way you will see it taken up by GSMA, which you will need to obtain interoperator agreements to use this (e.g. roaming, shared networks). 3GPP them works with IETF on any SIP extensions needed.
[MB] One big problem with this proposal is that you must be a member of 3GPP/GSMA to make contributions and to participate in meetings.

And, I think having to first do the work in 3GPP and then bring it to IETF would introduce a tremendous delay for something that's already been implemented/deployed.  While they are proposing to reuse elements and protocols that are part of an IMS network, the core issue they have is with interworking SIP with the radio layer protocols.  Certainly, one could implement all the protocols that IMS uses and then use the 3GPP based specs and proprietary headers to interwork with SIP in the Internet, but that would be terribly inefficient.
[/MB]

I would only see IETF having any direct part in this if the proposal was only to use unlicensed spectrum by enterprises rather than licensed operators, which Jim has negated.

regards

Keith

________________________________
From: Tim Panton new [mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk<mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk>]
Sent: 13 February 2014 14:50
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: Harvind Samra; Ivo Sedlacek; dispatch@ietf.org<mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP and GSM/UMTS with OpenBTS

On 13 Feb 2014, at 14:34, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:

Jumping in here, they are relevant in as much as there is no point in IETF working on this if there is no known market for it.

Usually those type of projects are published only on April 1st.

So all Ivo is asking is for you to justify that it is worth other people working on this as well as yourselves.

Perhaps if you identified the spectrum you believe is available for use in the the countries identified, that would be useful.

regards

Keith Drage

Ivo's employer seems to see a market for small cells, but looks to tie them to existing operator IMS's through
internet connections "owned by themselves or a partner".
http://www.telecomlead.com/enterprise-networking/mwc-2014-ericsson-announce-small-cell-service-20233/
Perhaps that's an April fools joke too (I can't see any avian carriers mentioned though)?

It isn't up to the IETF to crown specific solutions. That's the market's job.

T.

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org<mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch